BW1359 Where to pour the liquid?

[Alexkebbab]

I need to pour fluid into the transfer case, but I can't figure out which hole to use for this.

 

[franklin2]

That is not a transfer case, even though it looks like one. There is nothing in it except sealed bearings, so as far as I can research, it takes no lubricating oil.

 

[SenorNoob]

That's weird. I'd have figured Ford used the same open bearings as in a regular transfer case. You can see where the fill would've been, but the doesn't look removable.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

That's weird. I'd have figured Ford used the same open bearings as in a regular transfer case. You can see where the fill would've been, but the doesn't look removable.

If Ford was logical they would have just grabbed a 2wd trans from the Ranger that was already in the same building as these abominations.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

If Ford was logical they would have just grabbed a 2wd trans from the Ranger that was already in the same building as these abominations.

You’re asking a lot you know

 

[19Walt93]

If Ford was logical they would have just grabbed a 2wd trans from the Ranger that was already in the same building as these abominations.

We has a Ranger engineer from Ford as a speaker at a parts and service manager meeting right after the pulse vacuum hubs were released. I asked why they came up with that set up instead of just using the IFS suspension and front drive that Explorers had since 1995. He didn't know about Explorers. Apparently the Ranger engineers didn't talk to the Explorer guys. Common sense (a foreign concept to an engineer) told me the Bronco II and Explorer were both station wagon versions of Rangers. By May of 2017 when I retired we'd had exactly one 2wd Bronco II in our shop, we never stocked a new 2wd.

 

[fastpakr]

We has a Ranger engineer from Ford as a speaker at a parts and service manager meeting right after the pulse vacuum hubs were released. I asked why they came up with that set up instead of just using the IFS suspension and front drive that Explorers had since 1995. He didn't know about Explorers. Apparently the Ranger engineers didn't talk to the Explorer guys. Common sense (a foreign concept to an engineer) told me the Bronco II and Explorer were both station wagon versions of Rangers. By May of 2017 when I retired we'd had exactly one 2wd Bronco II in our shop, we never stocked a new 2wd.

Sounds about right based on my 99 Explorer to Ranger engine swap. So much of what was in each vehicle was 99% identical, to the extent that it seemed like someone wrote down clear instructions to two independent development teams doing the same tasks, then left them to their own devices. As an example, my 3.0 Ranger and 5.0 Explorer used exactly the same air filter, and the housing design used the same concepts - attaching too the passenger fender well with the same number of fasteners in approximately the same locations, etc. But never in exactly the same way… The 3.0 box wouldn’t attach to the 5.0 intake. The 5.0 box wouldn’t bolt down in the same spot as the 3.0 box because the fasteners were moved just a fraction. It was maddeningly close but not the same.

Then there was the harness on the drivers side that handed off the a/c clutch power and a few other things. Exactly the same connectors with the same pinouts. But the connectors were reversed! So unpinned two of the connectors and swapped them to fix a bizarre problem that never needed to exist if they’d truly been developed side by side.

 

[SenorNoob]

Almost like somebody engineered one part and another team found it in the catalog of existing parts and said that BUT...

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Sounds about right based on my 99 Explorer to Ranger engine swap. So much of what was in each vehicle was 99% identical, to the extent that it seemed like someone wrote down clear instructions to two independent development teams doing the same tasks, then left them to their own devices. As an example, my 3.0 Ranger and 5.0 Explorer used exactly the same air filter, and the housing design used the same concepts - attaching too the passenger fender well with the same number of fasteners in approximately the same locations, etc. But never in exactly the same way… The 3.0 box wouldn’t attach to the 5.0 intake. The 5.0 box wouldn’t bolt down in the same spot as the 3.0 box because the fasteners were moved just a fraction. It was maddeningly close but not the same.

Then there was the harness on the drivers side that handed off the a/c clutch power and a few other things. Exactly the same connectors with the same pinouts. But the connectors were reversed! So unpinned two of the connectors and swapped them to fix a bizarre problem that never needed to exist if they’d truly been developed side by side.

These are the people that want to make it illegal to fix your own vehicle.

 

[Li'l Work Truck]

These are the people that want to make it illegal to fix your own vehicle.

Virtually no part of me wants to see that happen, but if it does, I hope they get the results of exactly what they want, with cars piling up outside dealerships, and other companies desperate to get people back into the office then have to turn around and offer WFH because their own CEO can't get to work.

 

[franklin2]

I just got a couple of older Modular 4.6 equipped Fords. You would not believe the mess they had going on with those. Two different plants making the same engine, but using different bolt sizes, different ways to hold the camshafts and the crankshafts in place, etc. But it is the same "Modular" 4.6 engine. It was a Romeo engine or a Windsor engine. Look the same from the outside.

 

[19Walt93]

I just got a couple of older Modular 4.6 equipped Fords. You would not believe the mess they had going on with those. Two different plants making the same engine, but using different bolt sizes, different ways to hold the camshafts and the crankshafts in place, etc. But it is the same "Modular" 4.6 engine. It was a Romeo engine or a Windsor engine. Look the same from the outside.

They were more different than that, the Romeo had full length spark plug threads, Windsors had 4 or 5 threads, Romeos had 6 flywheel bolts, Windsors had 8, and there were other differences that I can't think of right now. The 8th digit of the VIN identifies the engine, I forget what the Windsor code was, a Romeo was a "W". I guess that makes sense to someone, not to me.

 

[19Walt93]

Sounds about right based on my 99 Explorer to Ranger engine swap. So much of what was in each vehicle was 99% identical, to the extent that it seemed like someone wrote down clear instructions to two independent development teams doing the same tasks, then left them to their own devices. As an example, my 3.0 Ranger and 5.0 Explorer used exactly the same air filter, and the housing design used the same concepts - attaching too the passenger fender well with the same number of fasteners in approximately the same locations, etc. But never in exactly the same way… The 3.0 box wouldn’t attach to the 5.0 intake. The 5.0 box wouldn’t bolt down in the same spot as the 3.0 box because the fasteners were moved just a fraction. It was maddeningly close but not the same.

Then there was the harness on the drivers side that handed off the a/c clutch power and a few other things. Exactly the same connectors with the same pinouts. But the connectors were reversed! So unpinned two of the connectors and swapped them to fix a bizarre problem that never needed to exist if they’d truly been developed side by side.

It makes sense to use what you've already got rather than reinvent the wheel every time, it saves money and part quality improves. By the way, the original air filter in my 77 V8 Cobra II was the same one used in a 78-80 Fiesta- and that wasn't a good thing but it fit under the hood. It also helped choke the 302 down to 139hp.

 

[fastpakr]

It makes sense to use what you've already got rather than reinvent the wheel every time, it saves money and part quality improves. By the way, the original air filter in my 77 V8 Cobra II was the same one used in a 78-80 Fiesta- and that wasn't a good thing but it fit under the hood. It also helped choke the 302 down to 139hp.

That’s the point - they didn’t use what they already had. Over and over again, parts that could have been exactly the same on both vehicles were redesigned with small differences that had no reason to exist.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

They were more different than that, the Romeo had full length spark plug threads, Windsors had 4 or 5 threads, Romeos had 6 flywheel bolts, Windsors had 8, and there were other differences that I can't think of right now. The 8th digit of the VIN identifies the engine, I forget what the Windsor code was, a Romeo was a "W". I guess that makes sense to someone, not to me.

I could see someone being funny at Ford and giving the Windsor a "R"

That’s the point - they didn’t use what they already had. Over and over again, parts that could have been exactly the same on both vehicles were redesigned with small differences that had no reason to exist.

What in the land of three 351's is that supposed to mean?